Page No.# 1/3 GAHC010173582023 2026:GAU-AS:5623 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/4680/2023 MANGOL PANDIT SON OF SHREE RAM PANDIT, RESIDENT OF COURT PARA, KOKRAJHAR, WARD NO. 10, P.O. AND DIST.- KOKRAJHAR, ASSAM. VERSUS THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, GAUHATI HIGH COURT, PIN- 781001. 2:THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM JUDICIAL DEPTT. DISPUR GUWAHATI-6. 3:THE DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE KOKRAJHAR ASSAM NEAR SBI COURT PARA KOKARJHAR PIN- 783370. 4:CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER Page No.# 2/3 OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE COMPLEX KOKARJHAR PIN- 783370. 5:AKASH MAZUMDAR MALI OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE SON OF PRASENJIT MAZUMDAR KOKRAJHAR WARD NO. 3 DISTRICT- KOKRAJHAR For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. K. Das, Advocate For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H. K. Das, SC, GHC BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH ORDER Date : 23.04.2026 Heard Mr. S. K. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. H. K. Das, the learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Gauhati High Court. 2. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the discharge order dated 31.05.2023 as well as the subsequent appointment of the Respondent No.5 vide an order dated 07.06.2023. The Petitioner has also sought for appropriate directions that the Petitioner should be restored to the post of Page No.# 3/3 Mali cum cleaner under the establishment of the Respondent No.3 3. The materials on record and more particularly the affidavit- in-opposition filed by the Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 shows that in pursuance to the discharge of the Petitioner on 31.05.2023, the Petitioner had participated in some recruitment process and was unsuccessful. The Respondent No.5 who was appointed in pursuance to the said recruitment process was however discharged on account of being over qualified. 4. This Court also does not find any good reason to interfere with the impugned order of discharge of the Petitioner inasmuch as merely because of the fact that the Petitioner was appointed on a contingency basis, the Petitioner does not have a right to continue in respect to the post beyond the terms of the appointment. 5. Consequently, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition for which the writ petition stands dismissed. JUDGE Comparing Assistant